The tricky territory of truancy

A couple of years ago, RSA 189, the state law that deals with truancy, was made stricter, and truancy became defined as 10 half days of unexcused absence, whereas before it had been 20 half days.

A technical advisory (which can be read at www.education.nh.gov/standards/documents/truancy.pdf)was subsequently issued by the NH Department of Education, and this outlined various definitions, and what is now expected of school administrations and school boards in the light of the changes.

We encourage people who have an interest in the policies now impacting Rochester parents and students, to visit this web page, as it reflects the concerns expressed by parents, lawmakers and others, during the information gathering process.

Although parents can no longer give permission for a student to be absent from school, the advisory reads, districts should formulate attendance policies that provide a tiered process of interventions and appeals, involving the parents at each level.

Among other things, school boards across the state — in the aftermath of the law change — had to clearly define “excused absence” and come up with a process for considering exceptions to absences not otherwise excused.

Again, we quote from the advisory, to indicate that Rochester’s moves to rein in truancy, are neither hasty, isolated nor persecutory: “In the two years that the legislature spent studying the issue of truancy in the public school system, the emphasis was on creating a balanced public policy. While the policy should provide school administrators and truant officers the authority needed to reduce and prevent truancy, districts should be both sensitive and reasonable in considering requests for absences to be excused.

“While the law requires that parents be involved in both the development of the policy, as well as early in the intervention process, the department encourages school districts to involve parents at each level, including discussions concerning how the new policy will be implemented.”

Fast forward two and a half years since the state law was tightened, and with local policies now in place, and a stubborn (though hopefully small) truancy problem within the Rochester school system, the police department has been asked to step into the arena as part of the enforcement arm.

As reporter Samantha Allen details on our Page 1 story, summonses were recently issued to a number of parents and guardians, and on Monday they had their first day in district court — except for the one who failed to show up. Four parents have now agreed to take part in a diversion program, along with their children, and we, along with everyone involved, hope that this proves effective and curative. Two other parents have elected to go to trial.

This issue may be breaking fresh ground in New Hampshire, but in a number of states across the country, and particularly in the south, parents are serving prison time because of their offspring’s reluctance to attend school, for whatever reason.

It would be most regretful if it came to that in Rochester, but once the wheels of justice grind into motion, the stop switch cannot be employed arbitrarily.

Almost everyone agrees that in these competitive times, education of the young is essential. The future facing the semi-literate is bleak, and statistically, it leads to a reliance, in later life, on safety nets and welfare systems, and a higher probability of crime and incarceration — the costs of which are all picked up by local, state and federal taxpayers.

Thus, while we should not persecute the parents of students who do not attend school, we should not shrink from prosecuting them, albeit with the least amount of vigor necessary to bring families into compliance. If it takes a village to get a kid to go to school, so be it.